On September
9, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court removed a Reform Party judicial candidate
from the November ballot, because he had also sought, and lost, the Democratic
and Republican nominations for the same office. In re nom. Paper of Zulick,
534 m.d. 2003. The Reform Party and its candidate, Arthur Zulick, are appealing
to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Reform Party is a qualified party in
Monroe County, where Zulick is running.

Pennsylvania
permits "fusion" for partisan judicial elections. A candidate may
seek the nomination of several political parties, and if he or she wins them
all, the candidate is listed on the general election ballot with several party
labels.

Pennsylvania
has two types of "qualified" political parties. Those with registration
of 15% nominate by primary. Smaller qualified parties nominate by convention,
and then must submit petitions to place their nominees on the November ballot.
The Reform Party in Monroe County is a qualified party that nominates by convention.

Pennsylvania
election law says that a candidate who loses a primary election cannot appear
on the November ballot as the nominee of a qualified minor party. This law is
the reason that Zulick is being barred from the November ballot as the Reform
Party nominee.

However,
that law was declared unconstitutional by the 3rd Circuit in 1999,
in Reform Party v Allegheny County Board of Elections, 174 F 3d 305.
The 3rd circuit had said that since Pennsylvania permits fusion for
candidates who win both the Democratic and Republican primaries, therefore Pennsylvania
can’t prohibit fusion between a candidate who wins one major party primary and
also wins the convention nomination of a qualified minor party.

In that
case, the Reform Party candidate had also won the Democratic primary, but had
lost the Republican primary. He wanted to be listed in November as the "Democratic,
Reform" nominee.

In the
1999 case, the state barred him from the November ballot because he had lost
the Republican primary. But the 3rd circuit voided the "sore
loser" law, as it pertains to elections involving qualified minor parties
and fusion.

Given the
1999 result, it is shocking that the Commonwealth Court barred Zulick from appearing
on the November ballot as the Reform Party nominee. The Commonwealth Court distinguished
the 1999 case from the current case by pointing out that in the 1999 case, the
plaintiff-candidate had won one primary and lost another one. In the current
case, the plaintiff-candidate had lost both primaries.

But the
principle remains the same: Pennsylvania was told in 1999 that it cannot discriminate
against qualified minor parties, versus major parties. If the winner of either
the Democratic or Republican nominee had tried to get the Reform nomination
at the Reform Party’s convention, and failed to get it, no one would have then
labeled that candidate a "sore loser" and kept him or her off the
general election ballot.

There is
no difference, in principle, between the 1999 case and the current case. The
Commonwealth Court tried to show there is a difference by labeling the 1999
plaintiff-candidate a "happy winner" (since he won one major party
primary, but not the other one). It labeled Zulick a "sore loser".
But the 1999 candidate had won two party nominations and lost a third one; Zulick
has won one party nomination and lost two others. two Reform Party candidates.
They were each partially successful and partially unsuccessful.

There is
no principle that says a candidate who tries for three party nominations and
just gets one, should be treated differently than a candidate who tries for
three party nominations and gets two of them.

The Commonwealth
Court seemed to sense that its logic was shaky. Therefore, it made a separate
claim, that the 3rd circuit decision from 1999 need not be followed!
The Commonwealth Court said, "Decisions of intermediate federal courts
are not binding on state courts." It cited Weaver v Pa. Board of Probation
and Parole for this conclusion.

Weaver
v Pa. Board of Probation was a state case in which a prisoner had first
filed a habeus corpus petition with a federal court. The federal court
had predicted that the prisoner might succeed in state court, and had therefore
dismissed the habeus petition. The prisoner then had gone to state court,
arguing that he had a constitutional right to be considered for parole. The
state court ruled that no one has a constitutional right to be considered for
parole, and in the process said the federal court had been wrong to predict
that the state courts might entertain such a case.

One cannot
conclude from the Weaver decision that once a federal court has declared
a state law unconstitutional, a state court can ignore the federal court ruling.
Once a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled a state law unconstitutional,
and no appeal is taken, that law is void.

Pennsylvania
has six ballot access laws that have been voided by federal courts, but which
have never been repealed or amended. They are listed in the next story. If the
Pennsylvania state courts continue to find that the state can ignore constitutional
judgments of the federal courts, all six issues will be unsettled and Pennsylvania
election administration will be chaotic.

PA.
LAWS VOIDED BY FEDERAL COURTS BUT NEVER AMENDED

The page
one story refers to six Pennsylvania ballot access laws which have been held
unconstitutional by federal courts, but which have never been repealed or amended.
They are: (1) the law involved in the Zulick case (see preceding story);
(2) the petition deadline for minor party and independent candidates, struck
down in 1984; (3) the number of signatures needed for statewide minor party
nominees in odd years, struck down in 1993; (4) the mandatory filing fee, struck
down just last month (see next story); (5) a law requiring circulators to be
residents, struck down in 2002; and (6) a law barring independent candidates
from the ballot if they were members of a qualified party less than 30 days
before they file, struck down in 2001.

MINOR
PARTIES WIN FIVE LAWSUITS

Since the
September 1 B.A.N. was issued, minor parties have won five constitutional
lawsuits around the nation:

Ballot
Access: the Pennsylvania Green Party won its lawsuit in the 3rd
circuit against that state’s mandatory filing fee, on September 11. Belitskus
v Pizzingrilli, 01-3747. The party had also won the case in the U.S. District
Court in August 2001.

In 1972
and again in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that mandatory
filing fees are unconstitutional. These decisions never had a large impact on
policy, because lower courts interpreted the Supreme Court decisions to mean
that states were still free to keep the fees mandatory for everyone except "paupers".
And even "paupers" could be required to submit a petition in lieu
of the filing fee.

Still,
states must have alternate procedures for impecunious candidates. Pennsylvania
argued it need not provide an alternative because no fees are higher than $200.
The 3rd circuit rejected that argument.

The 3rd
circuit also rejected the argument that only someone with no assets or money
has standing to challenge the state’s failure to provide an alternative to fees.
The court suggested that since Pennsylvania also requires petitions for any
candidate seeking to appear on either a primary or a general election ballot,
there may not be any good reason for the state to require fees from any candidates.

The decision
ended by saying "The only way in which to resolve the problems that give
rise to this litigation is for the legislature to amend the statutes at issue
to comply with the Supreme Court’s ballot access jurisprudence."

The only
other states that still have mandatory fees for all candidates are Mississippi
and Ohio, where the maximum fees are $150 and $200.

Registration
into a Non-QualifiedParty: on September 19, U.S. District
Court Judge John Gleeson ruled that New York must permit voters to register
into parties that may never have been qualified parties in the state. However,
these parties must have placed statewide nominees on the ballot in the last
general election. Green Party of N.Y. v New York State Board of Elections,
02-cv-6465.

Judge Gleeson
had already ruled (on May 30) that the state must let voters register into parties
that had recently been qualified parties, but which had lost their qualified
status. The new ruling came as a result of intervention by some political parties
that hadn’t been part of the original case.

Gleeson
ruled that the state need not list the unqualified parties on the voter registration
form. Instead, the form will carry a blank line, and voters who want to register
into an unqualified party must write it in.

As a result
of the recent ruling, New York voters are physically free to register as members
of any party, via the blank line. However, the state need only tally voters
who register in the Green, Liberal, Right to Life, Libertarian and Marijuana
Reform Parties. These are the unqualified parties that ran statewide in 2002.

Of course,
the state will also tally voters who register into one of the state’s qualified
parties: Republican, Democratic, Conservative, Independence, and Working Families.
Each of the qualified parties continues to have its own checkbox on the form.

Iowa is
now the only state in the U.S. in which it is physically impossible for a voter
to register into any party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political
Party Autonomy: two cases were won, over letting political parties decide
for themselves who may vote in their primaries.

In Washington,
the 9th circuit ruled on September 15 that the state cannot force
political parties to nominate their candidates in a blanket primary. Democratic
Party of Washington v Reed, 02-35422. A "blanket primary" is one
in which all candidates of all parties are on a single primary ballot. A primary
voter is free to vote for members of different parties for different offices.
The Democratic, Republican and Libertarian Parties had challenged Washington’s
primary system. They had lost the case in U.S. District Court, but have now
won. The state is seeking a rehearing. Washington had been the last "blanket
primary" state in the union.

In New
York, a State Supreme Court Judge ruled on September 3 that independent
voters must be permitted to vote in the Independence Party’s primary. Van
Allen v Democratic State Committee, Albany Co., 5888-02. The Independence
Party wants independent voters to vote in its primary for statewide offices,
and had filed its own lawsuit on this subject in federal court recently.

The Van
Allen case includes a second plaintiff, Christopher Strunk, who is an enrolled
member of the Independence Party, but the lawsuit does not include the party
itself. However, the judge implicitly ruled that plaintiffs have standing to
attack the state law that bars all independent voters from voting in any party’s
primary. The Van Allen plaintiffs seek additional relief that was not
granted.

Disclosure
of campaign donors: the Freedom Socialist Party won an injunction on
August 28, permitting its candidate for Seattle city council to withhold the
names of people who donated money to her campaign. Averill v City of Seattle,
U.S. District Court, Seattle, C03-2508.

Back in
1982, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that minor parties can gain an exemption
from campaign disclosure laws, if they can show that people publicly identified
with the party are likely to suffer harassment. The Freedom Socialist Party
is only the fourth political party to win such an exemption. Twenty years ago
the Communist and Socialist Workers Party won such exemptions, and fourteen
years ago the Socialist Action Party did so.

SUPREME
COURT HEARING ON CAMPAIGN $$

On September
8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard McConnell v Federal Election Commission,
02-1674. The hearing generated such interest, C-SPAN carried an audio tape
of the hearing. The issue is whether the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law
is constitutional. The Court heard two hours in the morning on restrictions
on political parties. In the afternoon, it heard two more hours about the ban
on broadcast ads paid for by corporations or labor unions, during election season,
that mention candidates for federal office. The Court also heard arguments on
the ban on contributions to parties or candidates by people under age 18.

The only
minor political party in the case is the Libertarian Party. None of the attorneys,
and none of the justices, said anything whatsoever about the law’s effect on
minor parties, even though minor parties had been mentioned in the briefs on
both sides.

After the
hearing, most observers predicted that Justices Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia,
and Thomas will strike down most or all of the law’s restrictions on political
parties.

The same
observers predicted that Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer will
uphold most or all of the restrictions on parties. And those observers generally
said that Justice O’Connor is unpredictable.

During
the session on political parties, O’Connor only asked questions twice. She asked
if the prior law, the Federal Election Campaign Act passed in 1974, is also
unconstitutional. Kenneth Starr, who is the attorney for Senator Mitch McConnell,
said "no". Later, O’Connor asked Bobby Burchfield, the attorney for
the political parties, whether there is evidence that large donations to state
political parties cause corruption. However, that question never got answered.

The McCain-Feingold
law on political parties is extraordinarily complicated. It is likely that none
of the Justices, and perhaps none of the attorneys, had a perfectly clear picture
of these provisions in their heads. For that reason, the arguments about this
part of the law were muddled. By contrast, the afternoon arguments, concerning
bans on certain types of ads, and bans on certain political activity by people
under age 18, were well-focused, clear and riveting. Some of the justices in
the afternoon referred to the brief filed by Congressman Ron Paul and several
Libertarian activists, who had argued that the "freedom of the press"
portion of the First Amendment is relevant to the case.

LEGISLATIVE
NEWS

Alabama:
in a stunning development, the legislature (meeting in special session) passed
HB 3 on September 24. It makes it fairly simple for most ex-felons to regain
the right to register to vote. Governor Bob Riley signed it on September 26.
He had vetoed a similar bill earlier this year.

District
of Columbia: city councilman Vincent Orange expects to introduce a bill
revising ballot access procedures by October 10.

California
(1): SB 430, to move the primary (for office other than president) from
March to June, failed.

California
(2): AB 1680 passed the legislature on September 12. It is designed to solve
the Republican Party’s timing problem. The party national convention won’t choose
presidential and vice-presidential candidates until September 2, which is past
the date by which state certifies candidates for the November ballot. Unlike
bills on this subject in other states, which actually moved the deadline to
a later day, this bill tells the Republican Party state chair to guess as to
who will be chosen, and certify his guesses. The bill doesn’t explain what should
be done if the guesses turn out to be wrong.

California
(3): State Senator John Vasconcellos introduced SCA 14 on the last day of
this year’s legislative session. It will probably make headway in January 2004.
It amends the state Constitution to require Instant-Runoff Voting in statewide
elections; "none-of-the-above"; relaxes legislative term limits somewhat;
provides for a non-partisan method of drawing district boundaries; and puts
the primary in September. If it passes the legislature by August 2004, voters
will vote on it in November 2004. It already has 5 co-sponsors.

Massachusetts:
hearings on three Instant-Runoff Voting bills were held on September 18. They
are H2784, H2785, and H2952. Legislators were very interested in the testimony,
which was entirely in favor of the bills. Elections officials were present and
did not oppose the bills.

New
York: On September 25, the legislature finally sent S5698 to Governor Pataki,
who must sign it or veto it by October 7. It makes presidential primary ballot
access much easier.

Ohio:
HB 90, which would move the primary (including the presidential primary) from
March to May, is not expected to pass.

Washington:
influential legislators will try to pass a bill, eliminating the presidential
primary for 2004, in a special session in early December. The motive is to save
money. The Democratic presidential primary doesn’t actually choose the delegates
anyway, and the Republicans as yet have no contest.

OTHER
LAWSUIT NEWS

California:
Southwest Voter Registration Ed. Project v Shelley, 03-56498,surely
set some judicial speed records. The 9th circuit ruled on September
15 that the recall could not be held on October 7. On September 19, the court
agreed to a rehearing. The new hearing was on September 22, and the new decision
appeared at 9 a.m., September 23.

The basis
for the original 9th circuit decision was that 44% of voters would
be using punchcards, which had been de-certified in 2001. The rehearing panel,
in its reversal, said the harm done by punchcards isn’t as great as the harm
of stopping an election that is already underway. Both opinions will be reported.

California
(2): the 9th circuit will hear Weber v Jones, 02-56726,
on October 8 in Pasadena. The issue is whether touch-screen voting systems should
produce a paper trail. www.electionguardians.org/Weber.

Idaho:
on September 8, the 9th circuit ruled that the state’s initiative
law cannot require signatures from half of the state’s 44 counties. The basis
is that counties are unequal in population. The 9th circuit cited
Bush v Gore, as well as other precedents, including an identical decision
of the Utah Supreme Court. Idaho Coalition for Bears v Cenarrusa, 02-35030.
This decision may put pressure on Pennsylvania to revise its primary ballot
access law. Pennsylvania is the only state that still has a county distribution
requirement for statewide candidate petitions.

Illinois:
on September 19, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Guzman, a Clinton appointee,
upheld state absentee voting laws. Griffin v Roupas, 02c-5270. Voters
who will be out of the county on election day may vote absentee. Some voters
who work long hours on election day, and who have long commutes, but who do
not cross county lines to go to work, brought the lawsuit. They say that by
the time they get home from work and pick up their children, it is too late
to vote. They want to vote absentee. They will appeal.

Indiana:
this state prints party logos on general election ballots (a "logo"
is a small picture of a political party’s symbol or emblem). The original purpose
of printing logos on ballots was to help voters who cannot read. The Republican
Party recently changed its logo from an eagle, to an eagle plus the words "The
A Team". The Democratic Party recently filed a lawsuit against printing
that on the November 2003 ballot. State ex rel Sanders v Sadler, Marion
Co., 49d07-0309pl-1709. The lawsuit says the new logo is illegal because it
amounts to electioneering at the polls. A decision is expected by October 3.

Maryland:
on September 5, the State Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of a lower state
court. That decision struck down a state law, making it illegal to pay people
on election day to get out the vote. State v Brookins, no. 19, Sep. 2003
term.

Maryland
(2): on September 11, the State Court of Appeal responded to the state’s
request for a rehearing in Maryland Green Party v Board of Elections.
As reported in the September 1 B.A.N., that court had ruled that inactive
voters may sign petitions. The State Board of Elections asked for a rehearing,
claiming that federal law forbids inactive voters to sign petitions. The Court
expressed skepticism, but directed a lower court to hear that point in greater
detail. The State Board’s claim seems absurd on its face, since only seven other
states refuse to let inactive voters sign petitions.

Mississippi:
on September 23, the Reform, Green and Constitution Party nominees for Governor
filed a lawsuit in federal court, to gain entry into the gubernatorial debates.
O’Hara v Barbour, 3:03cv-1128-LN. The debates are being held at two state
universities.

Montana:
on September 11, the 9th circuit upheld a state law that sets a ceiling
on the amount of money a candidate for state office can receive from all political
action committees. The vote was 2-1. Montana Right to Life v Eddleman, 00-35924.

New
York: on July 1, the 2nd circuit dismissed the lawsuit Kaloshi
v Spitzer, 02-9075, on procedural grounds. Plaintiffs had been hoping to
win a ruling that a petition circulator of one party can circulate a primary
petition for a candidate of another party. But the 2nd circuit said
the plaintiffs don’t have standing.

New
York (2): the Working Families Party filed a lawsuit on July 30, to force
the New York city Board of Elections to replace a device in the mechanical voting
machines, that helps voters to know when they have cast an invalid vote. Working
Families Party v N.Y. City Board of Elections, cv03-3701, Brooklyn.

North
Carolina: on September 23, the 4th circuit struck down a state
law that defines "political committees", and that limits donations
to such committees. If a group meets that definition, it is subject to reporting
requirements, and cannot accept contributions greater than $4,000, if the money
is to be used for independent expenditures in candidate elections. The Court
ruled that the definition of "political committee" is too broad, and
also struck down the limit on contributions to such committees. N.C. Right
to Life v Leake, 02-2052.

Utah:
on September 15, the 10th circuit heard arguments in Initiative
& Referendum Institute v Leavitt, 02-4105. The issue is whether state
governments can provide that initiatives on certain particular subjects, such
as wildlife issues, need a two-thirds majority to pass, whereas most initiatives
only need a majority.

MASS.
FUSION

The proposed
initiative to legalize "fusion" in Massachusetts has been dropped.
Backers of the idea will instead try to persuade the legislature to pass the
idea next year.

TEXAS
CHANGE

On September
13, Texas voters amended their state constitution. In the future, when only
one candidate is running in either a primary or general election, that office
will be removed from the ballot.

2004
PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT

STATE

REQUIREMENTS

SIGNATURES COLLECTED

DEADLINE
later method

u

FULL
PARTY

CAND.

LIB'T

GREEN

NAT
LAW

CONSTI.

REFORM

Alabama

41,012

5,000

300

0

0

0

0

Aug
31

Alaska

(reg)
6,937

#2,845

*already
on

*reg
4,750

0

0

0

Aug
4

Arizona

16,348

est
#10,000

already
on

*2,500

0

0

0

Jun
9

Arkansas

10,000

1,000

0

0

0

0

0

Aug
2

California

(reg)
77,389

153,035

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

*49,529

Aug
6

Colorado

(reg)
1,000

pay
fee

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

July
5

Connecticut

no procedure

#7,500

can't
start

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
7

Delaware

est.
(reg) 270

est.
5,400

already
on

already
on

already
on

236

233

Aug
21

D.C.

no procedure

est.
#3,600

can't
start

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
17

Florida

be organized

93,024

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

Sep
1

Georgia

37,153

#37,153

already
on

*1,600

0

0

0

July
13

Hawaii

677

3,711

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

0

Sep
3

Idaho

10,033

5,017

already
on

*500

already
on

already
on

0

Aug
31

Illinois

no procedure

#25,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Jun
21

Indiana

no procedure

#29,553

already
on

0

0

0

0

Jul
1

Iowa

no procedure

#1,500

*200

0

0

0

0

Aug
13

Kansas

16,714

5,000

already
on

*4,000

0

0

already
on

Aug
2

Kentucky

no procedure

#5,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
26

Louisiana

est.
(reg) 140,000

pay
fee

1,170

667

22

37

2,806

Sep
7

Maine

25,260

#4,000

0

already
on

0

0

0

Aug
9

Maryland

10,000

est.
28,000

*12,000

already
on

0

*10,000

0

Aug
2

Mass.

est.
(reg) 38,000

#10,000

already
on

already
on

0

0

0

July
27

Michigan

31,776

31,776

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

July
15

Minnesota

112,557

#2,000

0

already
on

0

0

0

Sep
14

Mississippi

be organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

Sep
3

Missouri

10,000

10,000

already
on

0

0

0

0

July
26

Montana

5,000

#5,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

*600

already
on

July
28

Nebraska

4,810

2,500

already
on

*4,300

0

0

0

Aug
24

Nevada

4,805

4,805

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

July
9

New Hamp.

13,260

#3,000

0

0

0

0

0

Aug
11

New Jersey

no procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

0

July
26

New Mexico

2,422

14,527

already
on

already
on

0

0

0

Sep
7

New York

no procedure

#15,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
17

No. Carolina

58,842

est
100,000

already
on

*9,600

0

100

0

Jun
25

North
Dakota

7,000

#4,000

0

0

0

0

0

Sep
3

Ohio

32,290

5,000

*51,000

5,000

0

0

0

Aug
19

Oklahoma

51,781

37,027

*3,200

0

0

0

0

Jul
15

Oregon

18,864

15,306

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

Aug
24

Penn.

no procedure

est.
23,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
2

Rhode
Island

16,592

#1,000

can't
start

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Sep
3

So. Carolina

10,000

10,000

already
on

*1,400

already
on

already
on

already
on

Jul
15

South
Dakota

8,364

#3,346

*3,500

0

0

4,800

0

Aug
3

Tennessee

41,322

25

0

0

0

2,200

0

Aug
19

Texas

45,540

64,077

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

May
24

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

*1,500

0

Sep
3

Vermont

be organized

#1,000

already
on

0

0

0

0

Sep
16

Virginia

no procedure

#10,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
20

Washington

no procedure

#200

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug
25

West
Va.

no procedure

#12,963

*600

0

0

0

0

Aug
2

Wisconsin

10,000

#2,000

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

can't
start

Sep
14

Wyoming

3,644

3,644

already
on

0

0

0

0

Aug
17

TOTAL
STATES ON

*27

20

12

10

7

u

# allows partisan label.
* means entry changed since the last issue of B.A.N. "(reg.)" means a party must have a certain number of registered voters.
All dates in "deadline" column are 2004.

NADER
ASKS TO BE LISTED ON CALIF. GREEN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

In California,
minor parties that are entitled to their own primary tell elections officials
which presidential candidates to list on presidential primary ballots. The Green
Party of California has already asked the Secretary of State to list these four
candidates: Ralph Nader, David Cobb, Lorna Salzman and Kent Mesplay. Each of
the four had requested the party to submit their names. The party is free to
submit additional names during the next month.

David Cobb
is the Green Party’s national counsel, and lives in California. Lorna Salzman
is a long-time activist of the New York Greens. Kent Mesplay is a Californian.

SOCIALIST
EQUALITY PARTY

The Socialist
Equality Party, formerly the Workers League, has a candidate on the California
gubernatorial ballot. He is John C. Burton. He is the first nominee that party
has run for any public office anywhere in the U.S., since 1996. For more information
about the party, see www.wsws.org.

LaROUCHE
FILES FOR MATCHING FUNDS

According
to the Federal Election Commission’s web page, only two individuals have filed
for primary season matching funds so far this year: Howard Dean and Lyndon LaRouche.
Both are seeking the Democratic nomination.

In total
contributions so far, LaRouche has received more in this campaign than either
Senator Bob Graham or Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Primary
season matching funds aren’t payable until January of a presidential election
year, so there will be other submissions in the next few months.

REFORM
PARTY CONVENTION

The Reform
Party will hold its presidential convention August 13-15, 2004. The city will
be chosen soon.

CLAVELLE
RUNS FOR GOVERNOR

Peter Clavelle
has been elected Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for the last seven terms, each
time as the Progressive Party nominee (Burlington has partisan city elections).

He is running
for Governor, and he will try to get both the Democratic and the Progressive
nominations. Since Vermont doesn’t permit anyone to place his name on the primary
ballot of two different parties, he can only achieve his goal by winning as
a write-in candidate in one party’s primary. He will place his name on the Democratic
primary, and will seek write-ins in the Progressive primary.

FREEDOM
SOCIALIST ELECTION RESULT

Linda Averill,
the Freedom Socialist Party candidate for Seattle city council on September
16, polled 10.1% of the total vote cast. Six candidates appeared on the ballot;
Averill placed fourth. Averill is the candidate who won the lawsuit, permitting
her not to disclose her campaign contributors (see page two). Seattle has non-partisan
elections.

CALIFORNIA
DEBATE BREAK-THROUGH

On September
24, five candidates for California governor debated: Democrat Cruz Bustamante,
Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock, Green Peter Camejo, and
independent Arianna Huffington. This was the first time that a member of a minor
party had ever debated all of his or her major party opponents, on television,
in a California gubernatorial election.

ED
FRAMI DIES

On September
12, Ed Frami, 49, of Wisconsin, died of a stroke. He had been national vice-chairman
of the Constitution Party. Also, he had been one of that party’s most active
campaigners against bad ballot access laws. He had initiated the lawsuit Frami
v Ponto. That case resulted in the first reported decision that states cannot
bar out-of-staters from petitioning for candidates. The case was won six months
ago.